About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the united nations susan rice went on the talk shows it was a chest - orchesterated line. within 24 hours they knew it was a terrorist attack and how did they know that? they have to classify it as a terrorist attack to get the right people in action to go in investigate. that had happened. >> brian: there is a couple of problems with it 24 hours after the attacks we knew, there was intelligence knew. whether ambassador rice or president obama knew. i would have to assume they did know. they went everywhere saying we had no idea and blamed the movie. hilary clinton blamed the movie three times in the after math and jay carny blay amed the movie and president obama in the un podium mentioned the mouvy and not being -- being part of the reason for the killings. charles has a summary. let's listen to them. >> why did they deceive? it is obvious. the attack tock place five days after the democrats had spent ape week in charlotte spiking the football on osama and the only foreign policy achievement of four years they repeated it over and over. and great triumph and then al-qaida sacks the emba
it was preplanned within 24 hours after the death of the ambassador. yet susan rice, jay cancer oh, several obama officials going out saying it was a response to the movie. is this a cover-up? >> they lie. there is no question about it. by the way, if the republicans did that, there would be hell to pay. everybody would call for resignations and it would be terrible. but they lie. everybody knew they were lying. they knew almost immediately because it was obviously an attack. this had nothing to do with that stupid nieces made and it was stupid and it was ridiculous. but they lie. they've been lying for years now. they get away with it and the press allows them to get away with it. >> steve: so you're very clear, there are people who are lying about it in the white house. but -- >> they knew they were lying. i mean, they were saying it with a very straight face and they knew they were lying and certainly after the first 24 hours, it became the big lie and they kept doing it and the press allowed them to get away where w it. >> gretchen: why were they lying? >> in order to save face. in order to s
to the united nations susan rice and the others in the administration. it sounded lining it could not possibly be a terror attack and now we know it was. >> brian: senators are not giving up the details of the briefings. they have a problem with what they are hearing in public and know to be facts in private. here is a letter. we are disturbed by the public administration by members that it was a protest gone wrong rather than a terrorist attack. on the 11 year anniversary was september 11th. there is a series of events that led to attacks on 9/11 they had a well planned attack against the u.s. again . you don't admit they will not stop. >> steve: they want answers. >> gretchen: did the president start attending the intelemeetings because of benghazi or happened in libya or someone wrote an arcticle that he was not attending and suddenly he started to attend. >> brian: the day before the attacks on 9-leb e 10. the president marked the concern and sent warning out? >> steve: in fact the washington post fact checker took them to task and said he's wrong. the president might have attended less th
for another briefing. of course, this is all in the face of the likes of susan rice and jay carney who insist on clinging bitterly to their initial lies about what exactly happened there. >> brian: i wonder where this is going to go because there are so many questions still and no one is waiting for the administration anymore. you got a bunch of news outlets who are ticked off about what seem to be lied to. >> steve: something else, we played an hour ago this jaw dropper from one of the president's spokes people, stephanie cutter on the diane reams show yesterday. we're going to have you listen to it, along with everybody else and then commentary. >> that's the other thing that you find most often with women. they're not really concerned about what happened over the last four years. they really want to know what's going to happen in the next four years. >> steve: oh, really? looking forward, women are not concerned with what happened in the last four years with all those jobs lost and the economy in the dumper. they're more concerned about looking forward. you believe that? >> well, you know
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)